From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Aug 10 10:02:39 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 1233) id E61DA1065677; Tue, 10 Aug 2010 10:02:39 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 10:02:39 +0000 From: Alexander Best To: Kostik Belousov Message-ID: <20100810100239.GA74125@freebsd.org> References: <20100810015347.GA17233@freebsd.org> <20100810091806.GC2396@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100810091806.GC2396@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: tiny sys/sys/signal.h cleanup X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 10:02:40 -0000 On Tue Aug 10 10, Kostik Belousov wrote: > On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 01:53:47AM +0000, Alexander Best wrote: > > hi there, > > > > just wanted to get some feedback for this tiny patch and if people think it > > makes sense. > > I almost agree with the part of the patch that removes excessive commenting > for the individual signals. But I do not see much sense in repeating the > text that would be better suited for the man page, like signal(3). actually a lot of the comment is taken from signal(3). ;) i don't think however signals should be explained merely in one manual. sigaction(2) e.g. also documents the signals. so i thought having a brief explanation of the signals in signal.h would be helpful. plus as you said it gets rid of some of the individual signal-comments. cheers. alex -- a13x